common: Add more checks to _check_dmesg
authorFilipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:05:42 +0000 (17:05 +1100)
committerDave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:05:42 +0000 (17:05 +1100)
commit069442da9721051a1b3154ec92cb23cff21278c0
treebb53806c2b834c247e6be473b2ab52828616fd83
parent269469765af438b954c3b2ac7bbfa7d740a98fab
common: Add more checks to _check_dmesg

Teach _check_dmesg to look for improper RCU usage and circular locking
dependency messages. It's useful to check for these as they might point
to a real problem in the filesystem's implementation (or the current
implementation just confuses the checker, probably worth simplifying
the filesystem's implementation).

Currently the test btrfs/071 for example triggers such warnings:

[  912.924839] ===============================
[  912.925617] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
[  912.926394] 4.3.0-rc5-btrfs-next-17+ #1 Not tainted
[  912.927274] -------------------------------
[  912.928364] fs/btrfs/volumes.c:1977 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
[  912.929626]
[  912.929626] other info that might help us debug this:
[  912.929626]
[  912.931197]
[  912.931197] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
[  912.933822] 4 locks held by btrfs/6400:
[  912.934558]  #0:  (&fs_info->dev_replace.lock_finishing_cancel_unmount){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa046a193>] btrfs_dev_replace_finishing+0x3e/0x696 [btrfs]
[  912.948929]  #1:  (uuid_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa046a24a>] btrfs_dev_replace_finishing+0xf5/0x696 [btrfs]
[  912.950987]  #2:  (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa046a263>] btrfs_dev_replace_finishing+0x10e/0x696 [btrfs]
[  912.953265]  #3:  (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa046a278>] btrfs_dev_replace_finishing+0x123/0x696 [btrfs]
(...)

[  912.987973] ======================================================
[  912.989242] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[  912.990583] 4.3.0-rc5-btrfs-next-17+ #1 Not tainted
[  912.990801] -------------------------------------------------------
[  912.990801] btrfs/6400 is trying to acquire lock:
[  912.990801]  (&bdev->bd_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8119d202>] __blkdev_get+0xa3/0x3d9
[  912.990801]
[  912.990801] but task is already holding lock:
[  912.990801]  (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa046a278>] btrfs_dev_replace_finishing+0x123/0x696 [btrfs]
[  912.990801]
[  912.990801] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[  912.990801]
[  912.990801]
[  912.990801] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
(...)

Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
common/rc